This story is an edited excerpt from the new book ‘Money, art and madness: How the war between bureaucrats & auteurs killed the Australian film industry‘.
In June 1995, the government’s Film Finance Corporation (FFC) board papers recorded something so momentous it required a faux “Stop Press” notice.
“The FFC achieved full recoupment of its investment on June 27 and is in profit,” the board papers, released by the National Archives of Australia, recorded. “Full details will be published in next month’s report.”
The report was spurred by The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert — a film that the FFC board had initially rejected given the deal terms and relative inexperience of its director Stephan Elliott.
His debut film Frauds (which the FFC had supported), had yet to be released, and investing in two films made by a director with “no established commercial track record” would “not be prudent” according to FFC executives.
However, the FFC would eventually relent after the Priscilla screenplay struck a note at the Cannes Film Festival where Elliott was promoting Frauds.
The government film agency (later merged into Screen Australia) invested $1,675,343 – or almost half of Priscilla‘s final $3,630,849 budget.
Still, the FFC had no idea it would be a hit. Sales agent Manifesto Film Sales believed it could market the film to the same audience for LGBTQIA+ documentary Paris is Burning, which had grossed around $US5 million for US indie powerhouse Miramax.
Manifesto estimated Priscilla‘s total sales across all territories would land between $US1.89 million and $US3.84 million. The FFC discounted that estimate to just $US1 million when making its investment decision.
The FFC forecast a return on its $1.67 million investment of just $300,000.
Yet there was an unusual upside: the FFC’s potential investment returns weren’t subordinated to the other major investor, UK-based Polygram. The government film agency would recoup pari-passu – a position it was increasingly pushing for in film funding deals with only marginal success.
That decision allowed the FFC to reap the benefits of the film’s massive box office – a situation which quickly became clear after its response at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival, where it received (a genuine) standing ovation and was voted most popular audience film.
An FFC executive at the festival reported to the board that the film had recorded sales of $US2.9 million with more to come, pushing it to the top end of Manifesto’s original prediction.
In Australia, Village Roadshow backed the film with a massive $600,000 P&A spend (the equivalent of $1.3 million today), where it went on to gross almost $16.5 million in 1994.
The internal FFC project analysis report from July 4, 1995, recorded the gain in detail. Within 12 months, the film had returned $1.99 million on its $1.67 million investment. There was “more to come”.
It was a rare profit – one that flowed through far quicker than the government agency’s gain on Green Card, which had grossed almost $10.6 million in 1991 and became a global hit, yet was made under very different deal terms.
Priscilla has endured in the thirty years since its initial release – RMIT will hold a special 30th screening, the film has spurred a stage musical, and Elliott recently announced a sequel is in the works. And after all this time, the film still remains one of the rare features to turn a profit for any government film agency.
‘Money, art and madness: How the war between bureaucrats & auteurs killed the Australian film industry‘ contains the full budget and profit statements for films including Strictly Ballroom, Green Card, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and Muriel’s Wedding. The book is available now on Amazon.